Parrish v. Johnston Community College et al, No. 5:2009cv00022 - Document 66 (E.D.N.C. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER granting 37 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 58 Motion to Exceed Page Limitation. Plaintiff's claims against defendants Johnston Community College, Dr. Donald Reichard, and Donald H. Johnson are dismissed. Remaining before the court are plaintiff's claims against defendant George Harold Jones in his individual capacity. Signed by Senior Judge Malcolm J. Howard on 1/25/2011. (Heath, D.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Parrish v. Johnston Community College et al Doc. 66 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION NO. 5:09-CV-22-H PAULA PARRISH, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, a constituent institution of the North Carolina Community College System, DR. DONALD L. REICHARD, in his individual capacity, DONALD H. JOHNSON, in his individual capacity, and GEORGE HOWARD JONES, in his individual capacity, ORDER Defendant. This Community matter is College, before Dr. the Donald court L. defendants have replied. defendants Reichard, Johnson's motion for summary judgment. and on and Johnston Donald H. Plaintiff has responded, This matter is ripe for adjudication. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Paula Parrish has worked for defendant Community College first as the (the "College" Coordinator of or I\JCC") Computer Johnston since January 2000 Applications in I the Dockets.Justia.com Continuing Education Division, and later as Computer Applications and Distance Learning. this action against harassment and Donald Reichard L. plaintiff's George Johnston gender-based and Community H. Fourteenth Amendment Howard ("Jones") Jones College Johnson rights; for 1 Director of Plaintiff brought discrimination; Donald the for against for sexual defendants deprivation and against assault, of defendant battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff's interactions Jones of wi th two different at the College around 2005, worked Beginning allegations in or attention on plaintiff, her car after work, sexual harassment individuals as Jones calling her a from at JCC. employed maintenance began stem supervisor. lavishing "pretty lady," unwanted waiting by and offering her small bottles of alcohol. Jones visited plaintiff's office on numerous occasions, bringing her gum or candy or leaving gum or candy for her to find when she arrived at her office in the morning. to stop bringing her gum and candy, Plaintiff asked Jones but Jones failed to cease his objected-to behavior. On more than one occasion, plaintiff arrived find her office door unlocked and slightly aj ar. on December 4, at work to As a result, 2007, Plaintiff installed a webcam to monitor her Defendant Jones has not moved for summary jUdgment; therefore, the court will not discuss the claims against Jones. 1 2 When she checked the webcam footage office while she was away. on December 10, 2007, she found photographs of Jones "exposing himself, masturbating and performing other lewd acts in her desk chair," and "placing an unwrapped stick of gum against his penis and then desk./I re-wrapping (Compl. ~ 22.) college, Jones incident, plaintiff other symptoms the gum and it on Plaintiff's The following day, at the request of the resigned (or retired). experienced for placing After anxiety, which she to visit panic, sought the webcam insomnia, professional and medical treatment. Jones continued resignation, supervisors campus, after his causing plaintiff to become fearful and to ask her for assistance. Plaintiff that JCC could not keep Jones from asserts even this lack of alleges she coming to JCC. support and Jones's was told Plaintiff subsequent visits to campus caused her additional emotional trauma. Plaintiff also alleges she was harassed Johnson prior to his resignation on March 10, by Donald H. 2008. Johnson was employed by the college in March 1999 as the Director of Small Business Center and Occupational Extension Services. he became During his the Department employment Chair with of JCC, supervisor. 3 Health he was and In 2004, Public never Safety. plaintiff's Plaintiff claims that beginning in 2000, work environment and suggestion, innuendo Parish Dep. at 109.) her what sexual sexual nature content to all proposition." Specifically, positions in the she office, women in sent the made comments walking behind her. Plaintiff's to often email that ~I against he ~ 13; that he asked jokes messages with Education sexual "liked sexual Compl. told wife during (Amend. Compl. complaints (Amend. Continuing Parrish with she alleges liked, discussed what he did wi th his and saturated atmosphere and Johnson "created a the of a sexual Division, encounters, view" when 13.) Johnson span several years and are varied in nature, but are summarized briefly as follows. In 2001, plaintiff complained that Johnson made comments of a sexual nature and jokes with strong sexual overtones, as well as gave her looks investigation by that Talbert Continuing Education, comments but that made her Myers feel ("Myers uncomfortable. ll ) I Vice An President of concluded that Johnson did make offensive Parrish also probably participated, at least minimally and that she may have engaged in some acti vi ty that indicated that the jokes and comments did not offend her. upon plaintiff's request for Mr. no disciplinary attend a sexual action was harassment Johnson not to be disciplined, taken. Johnson workshop. 4 Based In was required September to 2004, plaintiff again, complained explicit comments and jokes, body parts. with his because and requested sexually some of which referred to specific that inappropriate Parrish complaint regarding time At this time, plaintiff and co-worker April Lee met Myers cease this and with HR. Johnson actions. Lee did Myers be given Myers not want informed one month reluctantly to make an Parrish and Lee to agreed official that they need to tell Johnson that his comments and actions offended them and that he must stop immediately. Again in 2005, complained of additional comments of a sexual nature. plaintiff This time JCC conducted a formal investigation and determined that Johnson had violated the COllege's Sexual Harassment Policy. college placed Johnson on probation for one year, The retroactive to July I, 2005. It appears that the offensive conduct ceased at that point. In fact, in the summer of 2006, Johnson's office was moved to Clayton, North Carolina, almost 20 miles from plaintiff's office at the main campus 2007 that Parrish in Smithfield. was offended It again was not by until December one of Johnson's comments. Johnson told Parrish and some other employees that he found out that his new neighbors were strippers wife was more excited about that than he was. that his Plaintiff walked out of the room at that point in the conversation, 5 and so she does not know if Johnson "stripper comment" continued by Johnson, the Following story. plaintiff this lodged another sexual The college harassment complaint against him with the college. investigated and concluded that Johnson's actions violated JCC's Sexual Harassment Policy. JCC effective March 10, Johnson was compelled to resign from 2008. COURT'S DISCUSSION I. Summary Judgment Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules material of fact Civil exists Procedure and the judgment as a matter of law. 477 U.S. bears 242, the 247 moving no genuine party Anderson v. is issue of entitled to Liberty Lobby, Inc., The party seeking summary judgment (1986). initial when burden of demonstrating genuine issue of material fact. the Celotex Corp. absence v. of Catrett, a 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once party may the moving party has met not rest pleading, Anderson, facts showing trial. Matsushita Corp., 475 U.S. 574, the 477 U.S. 'specific III on 587 burden, allegations or the non-moving denials in its at 248, but "must come forward with that Elec. its there Indus. (1986) is Co., a genuine Ltd. v. issue Zenith for Radio (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (e)) . 6 Summary judgment disputed factual 123, Supp. is not a issues. 125 vehic le for Faircloth v. 1993) . (E.D.N.C. the court to resolve United States, Instead, a 837 trial F. court reviewing a claim at the summary judgment stage should determine whether a genuine issue exists for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. In making inferences favorable Inc., this drawn to 369 determination, from the the underlying the non-moving party. U.S. 654, 655 (1962) court facts in must the view light United States v. (per curiam). Only the most Diebold, disputes between the parties over facts that might affect the outcome of the case properly Anderson, preclude 477 U.S. the at 247-48. entry of summary judgment. The evidence must also be such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 248. Accordingly I the court mus t examine "both the materiality and the genuineness of the alleged fact issues" in ruling on this motion. The elements of a (1) the plaintiff alleged harasser gender i (3) was Faircloth, 837 F. Supp. at 125. hostile work environment claim are subj ected to unwelcome conduct i engaged in this conduct "because that (2) the of" her the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create a hostile work environment; and (4) there is some basis to impute liability to 7 the employer. 261, 266 Matvia v. Bald Head Island Mgmt., Inc., 259 F.3d (4th Cir. 2001).2 II. Motion To Exceed page Limitation Plaintiff moves court response to allow her to exceed the page limi tation in judgment. Having reviewed the matter, plaintiff's her the motion [DE to defendants' #58]. Her considered in ruling on defendants' motion the court entire for summary hereby GRANTS response shall be summary judgment motion. III. Statute of Limitations argue Defendants plaintiff's allegations should not file charge a after work constitute the considered. of Ti tIe "unlawful contributing to entire considered liability." time by Johnson VII discrimination with environment one substantial the concerning Nat'l court R.R. and an employee days In a series employment EEOC wi thin to 180 cases, the of practice. separate As 1/ the claim occurs within the period a requires of time-barred are majority employment practice occurred." "the alleged unlawful hostile act be that of the hostile the for Passenger Corp. long filing environment purposes v. of acts as may \Ian period, may be determining Morgan, 536 U.S. 2 Because plaintiff's ยง 1983 claims are based upon the same facts and reasoning as the Title VII claims, the court does not distinguish the claims in its analysis. 8 101, 103 that occurred However, (2002). relation to before the or were environment claim, no a plaintiff may not recover for acts filing period longer part for reasons action by the employer. fl such such acts the of if same hostile as "certain had no work intervening rd. at 118. Plaintiff filed her charge of discrimination with the EEOC on March 7, prior 2008. to 7, 2008 hearing part March plaintiff's strippers The only allegation occurring within 180 days being his was of the a "stripper story new neighbors. Johnson The comment,fl told remaining i. e., about two allegations arise from events occurring in 2000-01 and 2004-05 and concern matters unrelated to the December 2007 "stripper comment. n Defendants argue that plaintiff's allegations cannot all be considered part of the same hostile work environment claim for two distinct reasons. "stripper comment fl therefore does does not environment claim. 233 F. entire Supp. sexual "anchoring 2d First, not constitute "contribute ton See Paquin v. 58, 63 (D. harassment acts fl defendants did not conduct sufficient to Second, defendants argue was a that the 9 sexual Johnson's harassment plaintiff's 2002) hostile (holding time-barred "constitute support that MBNA Marketing Systems, Maine claim argue as instances sexual any of 2007 work Inc., plaintiff's harassment December and timely harassing claim n .) "stripper n comment was not part of the same hostile work environment claim because of the intervening action by the employer (i. e . , disciplining of Johnson) and the amount of time that had elapsed since See Nat' 1 R. R. the prior incidents. Morgan, 536 US 101, 118 (2002); Mississippi Transp. Comm'n, (employer's reassignment see Passenger Corp. v. Stewart v. also, ~, 586 F.3d 321, 329-30 of supervisor (5th Cir. 2009) constituted intervening action that cut off employer's liability for earlier harassment, even though harassment resumed sixteen months later when harasser was again assigned to supervise plaintiff.) court, The arguments, summary having finds that judgment Johnson. The in only "stripper comment U alone to make Additionally, the 2007 the carefully the regards allegations too to timely defendants the allegation both are entitled allegat ions (the parties' to involving December 2007 is not severe and pervasive enough standing ) out a hostile work intervening action of time gap between the "stripper moving considered comment" tenuous 2004-05 to discipline allegations and the make environment connection constitute a claim. by JCC and the December between single, the unlawful employment practice. Furthermore, the court finds that there is no evidence that JCC or Reichard were negligent in handling Parrish's complaints 10 of sexual harassment, Johnson's or Jones' an employer's and therefore cannot be held liable To prove conduct under these circumstances. negligence in a hostile work for environment claim, the plaintiff must show the employer "knew or should have known about Inc. the v. conduct and Ellerth, 446 Winter, 524 failed 559, F.3d U.S. banc) ("When presented employers but can be when an 742, 567 Virginia Dep't of Corrs., to stop 759 (1998) (4th Cir. required the Indus., i see also Howard v. 2006)) (quoting Spicer v. 66 F.3d 705, with Burlington it." 711 existence (4th Cir. of 1995) illegal (en conduct, to respond promptly and effectively, employer's remedial response cessation of the complained of conduct, results in the liability must cease as well.")) . The evidence in this case shows Johnson's inappropriate behavior, action to stop the 2005, Johnson 2007 "stripper sufficiently environment after taking was comment" into Each Upon (which or pervasive standing alone) account tender his resignation. made aware time plaintiff I JCC learning this to of court and in December found not a hostile work the constitute history, the has investigated Johnson's matter and, asked Based on these actions, 11 of formally an investigation was conducted, disciplined. severe once JCC and Reichard promptly took harassment. complained about Johnson, that Johnson to JCC may not be See Mikels held liable for the alleged harassment by Johnson. v. City of Durham, only liable for 183 F.3d 323, their own 332 (4th Cir. negligence if 1999) they (employers fail to take "prompt and adequate action."). The same is JCC officials provided plaintiff's office, employment Following Parrish true with with the to JCC JCC with the her the took webcam prompt next of to a photos action Jones' office When plaintiff to Jones. very termination move respect day, of and ended December employment, "safe" Jones area Jones' 11, JCC and ln 2007. allowed installed security cameras which Parrish could view from her desktop. JCC offered the to assistance pay of for the counseling cOllege's costs attorney and to Jones was not banned from JCC's campus, even sue offered Although Jones. JCC officials sent him two letters instructing him to come onto campus only if he had business there and to contact the college prior to any visit. Additionally, plaintiff admits that although Jones came onto the campus a few times, she never saw him there. Here, the there are no genuine remedial action issues of material taken by JCC harassment made by plaintiff. in regards The court finds as to complaints to fact of that plaintiff has not shown a genuine issue of material fact or any evidence which would impute liability to 12 the employer in this matter. Therefore, the moving defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, page limitation is GRANTED summary judgment against defendants Reichard, is plaintiff's motion to exceed the [DE #58], GRANTED Johnston [DE and defendants' #37]. Community motion for Plaintiff's College, and Donald H. Johnson are dismissed. Dr. claims Donald Remaining before the court are plaintiff's claims against defendant George Harold Jones in his individual capacity. rn This Z5 day of January 2011. Senior United States District Judge At Greenville, NC #26 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
